An 18-year Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Manager for the FBI has called for a Special Counsel to be appointed to investigate the allegations of FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. John M. Cole, who now works as an intelligence contractor for the Air Force, made his comments during an audio interview released late last week with radio journalist Peter B. Collins.

He also offered a detailed insider's look at the concerns among high-level officials inside the Bureau as Edmonds' disturbing allegations began coming to light back in 2002, before they would be quashed for seven long years by the Bush Administration's unprecedented use of the so-called "State Secrets Privilege" to gag her.

Earlier last week, following the publication of a remarkable American Conservative magazine cover story interview with Edmonds --- detailing a broad bribery, blackmail, and espionage conspiracy said to have been carried out between current and former members of the U.S. Congress, high-ranking State and Defense Department officials and covert operatives from Turkey and Israel, resulting in the theft and sale of nuclear weapons technology on the foreign black market --- Cole had been quoted by the magazine confirming one of Edmonds' key allegations.

"I am fully aware of the FBI's decade-long investigation of" Marc Grossman, he said in response to the AmCon article/interview. Grossman had served as the third-highest ranking official in the Bush State Department and was alleged by Edmonds in the interview, and in a sworn, video-taped deposition a month earlier, to have been the U.S. ringleader for a massive Turkish espionage scandal reaching through the halls of power and into top-secret nuclear facilities around the country to the benefit of allies and enemies alike. Cole said that the FBI's counterintelligence probe "ultimately was buried and covered up," and that he believes it is "long past time" for an investigation of the case to "bring about accountability."

In his subsequent interview with Collins last week (audio and text excerpts posted below) Cole elaborated on those comments in much greater detail, noting that Edmonds has been "one hundred percent right on the money, on the mark" and confirming the existence of an "ongoing and detailed effort by Turkey to develop influence in the United States" through various illegal activities.

"Yes, I can confirm that," Cole told Collins, "That's true."

The FBI veteran executive also offered an insider's account of the panic that ensued inside the highest echelons of the bureau following Edmonds' first disclosure of information in 2002, recounting how an executive assistant director admitted to him at the time, just after the story first broke, "Well, all I know is that everything that Sibel is stating is true. I read her file. Everything she stated is, in fact, accurate."

Cole further describes how the concerns about Edmonds ultimately led to the Bush Administration's two-time use of the Draconian "State Secrets Privilege" in hopes of keeping her extraordinary information from becoming public. "Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate."

"I know they didn't want her to go out and speak about it at all," Cole revealed, "and I know they were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn't want Sibel to come out."

He also offered information which directly counters one of the criticisms of Edmonds' allegations as frequently offered by skeptics. Namely, that as a short time FBI contract translator --- even though she was tasked to review some seven years of counterintelligence wiretaps made from 1996 to 2002 --- she couldn't have had enough understanding of the full scope of the investigations to understand what was really going on.

"The thing is," Cole explained to Collins, "the position that Sibel was in, she had access to extremely sensitive information. The translators have access to some of the most sensitive information that we receive."

He detailed how first-hand information goes first from the translators to the investigators who then act on it, as some of the most important information collected by FBI language specialists could have "implications that may affect even the White House, or policy."

"So what I'm saying is, I know she had access to some very sensitive stuff, and I could see why the Bureau would squirm over her coming out and speaking about some of the things that were going on."

The interview concluded with Cole's reiteration of both his confidence in Edmonds' credibility, and his call for accountability.

"I would love to see, especially with the allegations that Sibel has come out with, her allegations --- which I believe are in fact true, I have no reason to doubt what she's saying --- I would love to see somebody take that, a Special Counsel or whatever, some group of people that you could trust, have them investigate those allegations and have people's feet held to the fire. Have them be held accountable for their actions --- and prosecuted if they've done wrong."

"You know, no one's above the law, and no one should be above the law," he added, along with one more chilling thought: "You know, it really irritates me that people are getting away with murder, in some cases. They should not be allowed to get away with that. There needs to be accountability. And that's what I'd love to see."

COLE: I've known Sibel now for, ya know, for a few years. And everything she says, she's a hundred percent right on the money, on the mark. I've never --- there's not one thing I've seen Sibel be off the mark on. I mean, she's 100%. She's very credible. I give her a hundred percent credit on everything she says.

Some of the things I'm not aware of, ya know, that she claims. But, here again, you know we had the Department of Justice's Inspector General review all this stuff too, and in their report they came out and said that there was a lot of merit to what she was saying and they ordered the Bureau to investigate her allegations. And, of course, they've never done it. It's been how many years since they told them to do that, and nothing's been done.

Confirmation of key allegations about Turkish espionage and high-ranking officials...

PBC: John Cole, based on your experience, going back to the early 1990's, can you confirm that there was an ongoing and detailed effort by Turkey to develop influence in the United States, through a variety of means, some of which were not legal.

COLE: Yes, I can confirm that. That's true.
...PBC: Are you aware of any long-term collusion by U.S. officials that aided and abetted that desire by Turkey to develop influence in Washington. In other words, was this a two-way street?

COLE: As far as helping us, helping the America public, no. As far as helping certain politicians, yes. That's correct. They would ask for favors, Turkish individuals would ask for favors --- ya know, 'you help me out and I'll help you out" --- and basically what would happen is the elected official would either receive money or some kind of gift. Or, if it was a government employee, I've seen it where after they retired, they get these very lucrative positions with a Turkish company, or whatever the country may be. ... They get a very lucrative position that pays them an extraordinary amount of money. ... So yeah, if you help them out, they help you out. Let's put it that way.

PBC: And, based on your knowledge, was this centered at the American Turkish Council, was that the entity, the non-government agency that was used by Turkey to spawn and promote this desire to develop influence among important officials in the United States.

COLE: I thought it was very interesting, the article was, and nothing really surprised me, let's put it that way. You know, I thought, well, there was certain things I wasn't aware of. I'll say that. But nothing surprised me. I thought well this makes a little more sense on some of the investigations I had, I can understand now why certain things happened the way they did. But as far as jumping out at me, nothing was really a surprise.

On first hearing about Edmonds in a 2002 Washington Post article; Confirmation and reaction among higher-ups in the Bureau when the matter first came up; And the key role that translators play in the FBI's counterintelligence divisions...

COLE: ...When I went back to work the next day, after that article came out, I asked somebody, I said "Whose this Sibel Edmonds?", and they said, a woman that I know, a female that I know that worked up on the seventh floor, which is where the Director's floor is at, all the executives are up there --- she told me, she goes "Well, all I know is that everything that Sibel is stating", this is what she told me, she goes, "everything that Sibel is stating is true. I read her file. Everything she stated is, in fact, accurate." And she goes, "The seventh floor better figure out what they're gonna do about her, because she's completely right."

And then I asked her, I said, "Well, how can I get a hold of her? I want to meet with her. I want to talk to her and compare notes with her."

And she told me, "It's best you don't get in touch with her."
...
Everybody at headquarters level at the bureau knew that what she was saying was extremely accurate.

PBC: Aside from the woman on the seventh floor that you referred to, was there any kind of a buzz that 'we've got to silence this woman, that this is dangerous for the FBI, dangerous for the U.S. government, could expose ongoing investigations?' I mean some of it could have been put in legitimate terms, and others, like you just cited the woman on the seventh floor, seemed to be suggestion that a cover up was in order, because this information was not only true, but highly explosive.

COLE: Well, exactly. And there was an executive assistant director I used to talk to all the time, and I talked to her about it, and she said one time, she goes, "Well, the Bureau is gonna have to try to work something out with Sibel, because they don't want this to go out and become public." And said, "Well, I think it's kind of late for that!" Ya know?

But I know they didn't want her to go out and speak about it at all, and I know they were trying to figure out ways of keeping this whole thing quiet, because they didn't want Sibel to come out.

The thing is, the position that Sibel was in, she had access to extremely sensitive information. The translators have access to some of the most sensitive information that we receive. I mean, we have stuff that is just mind-boggling, the stuff that comes in, the translators translate and we get. And they have first-hand knowledge of it, before anyone else does, because they're the first ones to translate it, and they say 'Oh, wow, look what's going on here."

And then they send it to the investigators, and we put the pieces together and say, 'Okay, now this is pertinent to my case here, or this is pertinent to this', or we send an IIR [Intelligence Information Report] out to the community saying 'this is something you might want to be aware of. This has implications that may affect even the White House, or policy'. So you send an Intelligence Information Report out to those agencies.

So, what Sibel is saying, I don't doubt whatsoever. There's no reason for her to lie about it. And she's been accurate on every other point that she's ever made.

So what I'm saying is, I know she had access to some very sensitive stuff, and I could see why the Bureau would squirm over her coming out and speaking about some of the things that were going on.

Calling for accountability and a Special Counsel investigation of the Edmonds case...

PBC: John is there anything you'd like to add here, in regard to the Sibel Edmonds case, and what you would like to see in terms of exposure of her allegations and investigation of these various serious claims?

COLE: Well, I'd like to see --- I feel terrible for Sibel, because I know what she's gone through. I mean, I've gone through the same thing. I think she went through more than I did, as far as that, and I went through a lot. But what I would like to see, there has to be accountability and there has to be oversight. First of all, you need to have legislation that protects people that come out and do the right thing.

And it has to be enforceable, that's the second thing. It has to be enforceable. You can have legislation, but if there's nothing to enforce it, it's useless. It has to be enforceable.

The third thing is, I don't believe any agency should have their own control over their security programs, for security clearance. It's just crazy that they have an inspection division within the FBI that goes out and inspects the FBI. Because everyone in that inspection division is trying to get promoted. And they know if they go out and find something negative about an SAC or an ASAC [Assistant Special Agent in Charge] or a high-level official in the FBI, they're not going to report it, because it's going to ruin their career. So you need to have a separate entity coming in and looking at that. The Dept. of Justice would be good, if they would do their job. But there needs to be some changes, and some major changes.

And I would love to see, especially with the allegations that Sibel has come out with, her allegations --- which I believe are in fact true, I have no reason to doubt what she's saying --- I would love to see somebody take that, a Special Counsel or whatever, some group of people that you could trust, have them investigate those allegations and have people's feet held to the fire. Have them be held accountable for their actions --- and prosecuted if they've done wrong.

You know, no one's above the law, and no one should be above the law. You know, it really irritates me that people are getting away with murder, in some cases. They should not be allowed to get away with that. There needs to be accountability. And that's what I'd love to see.

And I'd love to see Sibel finally have her day in court, where she can come out and say what she wants to say, and she can be compensated for all the wrong-doing that they did to her. I mean, she's an exceptional person, and she's a patriot, and she should not have been treated the way she's been treated. That's what I'd like to see.

Thanks, Mitch. The accolades mean a great deal coming from you in particular.

I should probably mention that we were also covering election integrity issues long before anybody was paying attention to that topic either! These things, apparently, the most important to the nation, seem to take a lot of time before the "mainstream media" bothers to notice.

And that is, of course, at the bottom of virtually everything that's a mess in our country right now, I'm afraid.

This country owes this brave woman untold apologies and gratitude for standing up for the integrity of our nation.

John Ashcroft deserves a cold cell in a dark place.

I've personally been commenting on every blog for the last 6-7 years, begging for them too interview her and keep her story alive. ("Blondesense", do you hear me now??, WTF is it now?, where were you? Jane @ FDL, I begged you, Raw Story editors, FINALLY you come around.....)

Brad deserves mucho accolades for keeping the embers stoked, perhaps we can use them to light a damn fire under this issue, and start the clean up D.C. begs for.

I'm guessing that there were some "costs" to Brewster Jennings getting exposed by Marc Grossman that lead to people getting murdered in the field, which I understand happens a lot when undercover operations are exposed and the public of course doesn't hear about the real detailed costs that happen then. I'm guessing that in John Cole's book that whoever might have exposed Brewster Jennings might be considered guilty of murder and not just treason in this case. I'd agree with that assessment if that's what he's referring to, and if in fact people did die in the field due to that action.

Welcome, Flo, and I'm reading that in my analog magazine tonight. From everything I've seen, Texas did execute an innocent man... after losing his wife and kids in a terrible fire someone else set.... Our country is broken and sociopaths are running it.

I have been musing on the reasons WHY the states secrets privilege was invoked:

1) Outright protection of criminals and ongoing criminal activity

2) Embarrassment at doing such an incredibly shoddy job of vetting employees and instituting internal controls against abuse of privilege.

2a) Or embarrassment morphs to criminal liability as the thread unravels and we discover some serious blowback (such as 9/11, or nuclear proliferation) resulting from some of these extracurricular diplomatic activities.

3) Related to 2, political considerations, as John Cole suggests. Such as the need to get the Patriot Act passed - which would be undermined bigtime were the public to know how easily its powers would be (or had already been) abused.

4) Threat of losing ability to work with "allies", who would take their ball and go home (e.g. deny the U.S. the ability to base out of Turkey for the invasion of Iraq they had already planned prior to 9/11).

But, apart from the case of option 1, you'd think Priority One would be to stop the bleeding, revoke some security clearances, and quietly get rid of (in the sense of firing, not killing) the offending employees. Yet, according to my crack research over at Wikipedia, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Grossman all stayed on in their posts until 2005. So what was going on from the point in time that Sibel raised her concerns to the time those traitors moved on to greener pastures?

Oh, and in the "sucking up" department, I do wish to compliment you, Brad, on your ongoing coverage of this topic. You very briefly and effectively sum up the developments to date, with excellent use of hyperlinking, for (a hopefully growing number of) those who are just joining the fray, before jumping into the new developments. You do this in a way that doesn't feel repetitive to those of us who have been following this all along. In my job, I appreciate this as a valuable but all-too-rare talent.

When this story seemed like it could no longer be ignored by 'the US media', I decided to plot a graph of it's ascent. So I googled 'sibel edmonds' hits during preceding 24 hours. I am saddened by what I have found:

That's right it's down to 35 hits for the past 24 hours. Not only is the MSM ignoring (repressing) the story, the 'blogosphere' seems intent on doing so as well. It really does seem like embers now, that we have to keep alive so carefully. The truth will eventually out.

I've been following BRADBLOG for years now, I think first by following a link from Bev Harris's site "BlackBoxVoting.org" I love Brad's directness and fearlessness following these stories that so badly need to be covered. I don't know why simple honest reporting of real news is so rare, I only know that it is. Thanks Brad!

Is it possible to get the Daily show to cover this or Rachel Maddow?
Why do so many news outlets spend days covering reports on congressmen having affairs but when it comes to bribes, blackmail,espionage etc.. no one gives these reports the time of day.

Why do so many news outlets spend days covering reports on congressmen having affairs but when it comes to bribes, blackmail,espionage etc.. no one gives these reports the time of day.

Why does anyone still have to ask this question? The prime directive for the corporately owned and controlled mainstream media is to protect the established order. By all means, reporters can make waves and "rock the boat" from time to time (good for appearances as it helps foster the illusion there really is such a thing as a free press), but by golly they know damn well they are never supposed to make waves big enough to swamp the boat or to actually put the boat in danger of tipping over. Broadcasting Sibel Edmonds' story would be like having a Tsunami breaking on top of a rowboat.

This story must not die. Too much is at stake and too many people have risked too much in exposing this. Whatever it takes, we must keep it alive. I still think a We Are Change type of guerilla news video confrontation of the various culprits would yield positive results.

Thank you for all of this. I really do appreciate it.
Still nothing in the MSM. He calls for a special prosecutor. Calls upon what agency? Just so we know where to watch.
As Sibel has stated that "we were working with Bin Laden" right up until 9/11, I would hazard a guess and say that over 3000 people were murdered in NYC on a crisp September morning. That would be just one example.

Sibel stumbles on a sting or double agent op by the FBI and gets fired when she won't shut up and risks blowing the whole thing......what is the problem here? We are not playing cricket with our enemies. The enemy (or potential enemy) needs to think the info they are getting is the real thing (and enough would be to convince them) and if that means a few corrupt politicians get hand outs then thats a small price to pay. Sibel probably blew the operation and may in the long run cost many lives....good job

comment #23--Sibel stumbles on a sting or double agent op by the FBI and gets fired when she won't shut up and risks blowing the whole thing......what is the problem here?
(This comment reminds me of the chapter in The Phantom Tollbooth about leaping to conclusions, a small island very difficult to leave once you've made the leap.)
The problem here is--1. your premise is complete conjecture and 2.--how is it that what's so obvious to you has seemingly not occurred in the slightest to John Cole, 18-year FBI Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism Manager? What do you know that John Cole wouldn't?

Sibel stumbles on a sting or double agent op by the FBI and gets fired when she won't shut up and risks blowing the whole thing...Sibel probably blew the operation and may in the long run cost many lives....good job

Wrong. At least if actual evidence to the contrary means anything to you. The Senate Judiciary Committee, when they met with Edmonds in 2002 first checked to make sure that was not what was going on. Otherwise, they would not have recommended the DoJ IG investigate the allegations, and the DoJ IG would not have confirmed them as accurate.

Sorry TheSmith. Facts first, your evidence-free scenarios last.

David Lasagna -

The Phantom Toolbooth is one of my favorite books. Thanks for mentioning it!

Cosimo diRondo @ 15 said:

Oh, and in the "sucking up" department ... In my job, I appreciate this as a valuable but all-too-rare talent.

Thanks for the kind words, Cosimo (and the others here), sucking up or otherwise. That said, what is your job where this skill is valuable?! I could use a few dollars around here!!!

{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Spam. You have already been asked politely above to post coherent comments in BRAD BLOG discussion, versus random words and phrases designed to ping search engines. You have now directly violated one of the few rules for posting here at BRAD BLOG by using a different user name. Please knock it off, or you will not be posting here at all. Thank you. - BF}

Look: this story is not only important for the ACTUAL story, but another HUGE thing: it's proving REAL TIME that the corporate mainstream media is controlled. It's TWO huge stories in ONE! One is a "by-product" story maybe as big as the actual stoey itself!

It would be a fatal mistake not pushing that indirect story of this being real time proof of the controlled media.

What are the names of the people who schedule health care industry shill Betsy McCaughey to hop from show to show across all networks shilling for the health care deniers and the Dick Cheney/Lynne Cheney "torture is OK" TV tour???

And I should add, Big Dan, that I'm sure you know by now I am as fiercely critical of the corporate media as ANYONE out there. They have failed this nation. Doesn't mean it's because they are "controlled" however. At least not in the way I believe you seem to be suggesting it here.

I'd say that in light of the seriousness of the allegations and the credibility of the persons pressing, "lazy, frightened, intimidated, assigned to other things" all are synonyms for "controlled". There really can't be any more quibbling about that.

Whether there are direct orders, and I'm sure there are in many cases, the fact that journalists would have any of those other excuses on something this big means they are controlled.

I mean, they don't want to get Donohued or Rathered or X number of others who got taken down for getting real. They also don't want to be the target of the oceanic accusations of "conspiracy theorizing". Everyone, not just journalists, is afraid to step out of the mainstream because of the fierceness of the social and economic consequences that have been carefully cultivated to maximize compliance with the will of the power élite. All this is coercive, and has been meant to be coercive....

Same deal with corrupt politicians. Coöperate and you thrive, but buck too hard and you get vilified or marginalized. Buck even harder and you get Wellstoned.

It's all "control". The extent to which our country has been ruined coincides with the extent to which this "control" has been effective.

Our country is broken. All three branches of government and the fourth estate.

FIrst off Cole is a weasel for not doing something about this before and only after Edmunds came out does he come crawling out of his
closet.
Americans Do not understand much of anything
USA is over but they cling on to hope that will never come.
It's coming crashing down and all Americans can really do is gnash their teeth now.
For far too long Americans did nothing voted for the same to political gangster organizarions
for far too long nothing was said ,well now when the end of America comes into view Americans scurry around feverishly trying to keep it afloat.
Hint: it's the Titanic and the Captain has already jumped over board.
Great cities left in ruin
population no longer responsible citizens
morals all but gone
You Americans are your own worse enemies
and the state of affairs rests on your heads
the damage done by Americans not terrorists
your leaders are the worse kind of people in the world and the populace now a hunkered down mass of ignoramuses.
the few good people left in America are thinking about following the 100,000 each year that leave for good.
what is left smells like third world squalor
a sty in your own making

I don't think it (necessarily) proves any such thing. It suggests they *could* be controlled. It also suggests that they could be lazy, frightened, intimidated, assigned to other things, etc.

If your implication is that someone, on high, is directing them to NOT cover this story, that could be. But I don't think anything we're seeing here necessarily "proves" it, at this point.

And I should add, Big Dan, that I'm sure you know by now I am as fiercely critical of the corporate media as ANYONE out there. They have failed this nation. Doesn't mean it's because they are "controlled" however. At least not in the way I believe you seem to be suggesting it here.

So, they are either:

1. Frightened & Intimidated.

...or...

2. Controlled.

Isn't that the same thing? WHO is "frightening and intimidated" them, if it's #1??? And WHY are they "frightened and intimidated"???

People are trying to expose the so-called liberal media, the corporate media.

They say TWO things about it, in explaining the so-called liberal media's lack of "doing their job". They're not "doing their job" because:

1. They're frightened and intimidated.

2. They're controlled and they actually ARE doing their job. Their job it to speak for the wealthiest few people really controlling everything, corporations, and the military industrial complex.

Noam Chomsky in the video above, entitles it: "The MYTH of the liberal media". MYTH implies they're doing their job (to me) which is to misinform.

I think the former excuse, that they're intimidated/frightened, is a cop-out excuse and actually hurts exposing what they really are, because it's implying they WANT to do their job...but they're "frightened" and "intimidated". I simply don't buy this. No disrespect intended to your point of view, which seems to be the former...or at least you say either way is not "proven".

Time after time after time...year after year after year...decade after decade after decade...this keeps going on and we keep making excuses FOR them...to the point where I don't buy it anymore - I believe they're doing it on purpose. And it explains a lot, to me, if they're doing it on purpose. For one thing, it explains why they KEEP doing it!

Tempted to comment on the total despair doomsday tone above, but why waste my breath.
Anyway, I'd like to suggest that everybody who has been following this extrodinary case call their federal legislators and ask them to read the American Conservative article. That way, they can't squirm out and say the had no idea. Last week when I called my senators to urge them to adopt Feingold's ammendments on the patriot act, I used Siebel's story as an example of why gag orders need reformed along with other reform measures like nsl letters referencing the 2007 wapo article. The assistants weren't sure if the senators were aware of Seibel's story, so I say we make sure they know!

To the extent that it's ever possible for ordinary citizens to be sure, I'm sure Sibil Edmonds is reliable. I'm sure she's not making a single thing up and not only that, that she's been meticulous from the beginning, and remains so. Bravo to her. Thank God for her.

But here's what troubles me, probably at least as much as the horrible things she has exposed: why is she the only translator who has ever had the conscience to blow this whistle? How in the name of God do you translate these atrocities, day after day, and NOT do what she did?

Look at how they make "media stars" and they're always "media stars" who happen to be for the corporations: Joe the Plumber, now Betsy McCaughey. They are always ALL for corporations, etc...these fabeicated "media stars".

...so my prediction is another "media star" darling along the lines of Joe the Plumber or Betsy McCaughey will suddenly appear across all networks. I will point it out when it happens. This new "media star" will, of course, be pro-corporation and/or pro-military industrial complex etc....because darling Betsy lost her cool and is now useless to them.

They will make their rounds across all networks and we won't know how.

I have to say this: MSNBC has: Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann, Ratiger...we haven't seen liberals like this in I don't know how long, on anything that could be remotely called "mainstream corporate TV".

All it will take, is another 9/11 to stop it, like they yanked #1 rated Phil Donahue during the leadup to the Iraq War because he was anti-war.

Thanks for the kind words, Cosimo (and the others here), sucking up or otherwise. That said, what is your job where this skill is valuable?! I could use a few dollars around here!!!

Software Engineer. The money's pretty good, and the chicks really dig it! Unless that was a Turkish spy trying to hook me into pulling a Tom Feeney. Oh crap, that must have been it...I thought she was asking me for a Trojan, but now that I think about it, she did say "Trojan Horse." sigh

i would like to see the illinois ag,lisa madigan,asked why she is not investigating ex congressman hassert..send her ur articles in hard copy with the hassert info high lighted..send it registered mail

ancient is correct,many politians may not know or may pretend not to know about this case

if we the people start arresting and punishing some of these corrupt peoples,their will not be as many in the "corrupt peoples pool" to control the media,elections and so on

Big Dan (and others who've rung in). The idea of "control" may end up being a semantical one, though I'll still aver that the context in which you seem to be using it implies a far great "consiracy" then I believe the yutzes I know in the media are likely able to pull off.

But whether that's a soft conspiracy/self-censorship/control or something more insidious (as you seem to suggest), I've alerted the Project Media folks to the conversation, as you had suggested, and we'll see if they have any thoughts to offer to the discussion.

Well, "control", or not, I've yet to see an explanation that adequately explains Josh Marshall's and Steve Clemons' cowardice on this issue. As you know, Brad, Steve offers some sort of "spat" with Sibel as an excuse, in addition to ethereal musings, vaguely presented, about having "misgivings" about Sibel's assertions. And Marshall, when directly queried by me, offered some inane sarcasm in response via email.

I do believe, not without cause, that Marshall and Clemons travel and party in the same circles, and I have a very strong suspicion that Grossman is swilling out of some of the same punchbowls.

Steve is now accusing those of us that wish to see this story in the national limelight of being cultists. I quote...

"I want nothing to do with the story any more because the movement is seeming less and less like a whistle blower issue and more like a cult of personality. I hope she gets somewhere with what she is trying to do. It's clear that she was close to some pretty interesting intel work...but there are other explanations, potentially, for some of what she saw than the explanations she has offered. And someone like Giraldi should know this"

"I won't go into this because of an experience I had with Sibel early on, after I tried to dig into it when you, POA, encouraged me to. I will not do it again"

As I have repeatedly tried to point out, when the mainstream blogosphere is rebutting Sibel's assertions with such implied accusations of "conspiracy theorism", it is extremely important that knowledgable and known personages respond directly. That would be YOU, Brad, and Giraldi, Cole, and even Sibel. I suppose you have your reasons for not directly confronting Sibel's detractors, on their turf, but common sense tells me that Sibel's story will NEVER get any traction if you expect her detractors to come to you. They are having a field day out there on the mainstream blogosphere rebutting Sibel's assertions with vague bullshit, with virtually no opposing viewpoints from those best informed to present Sibel's case.

Her cause, and her story, is dead on the vine if you, Giraldi, and Sibel do not rebut comments such as Steve's, promptly, and directly.

And I am not offering this argument judgementally or adversarily. I am just making a common sense observation. These people ARE not going to come to you, nor is their international and high powered readership. You will have to take it to them. If the media won't give you exposure, then its time to start doing changing tactics.

I have, in fact, sent private notes to both Clemons and Riz Kahn, but haven't received a reply from either. I did have a short back and forth conversation via email with Josh.

Not by way of defending any of them, I will just note that not everybody can cover everything. I too am criticized by various folks for not covering this or that when, in truth, I've only not covered it for lack of resources to be able to cover everything. Or, even lack of interest or confidence in a particular story. That last is likely closer to the explanation shared by Josh with me, and that's fine. I disagree with the assessment, but there it is.

As to not confronting or responding to Clemons over at his site, that has *truly* been for a lack of time. Feel free to, again, point me to where the discussion is ongoing, and I'll try to respond. Partuclarly to this bit you quoted from Steve:

"there are other explanations, potentially, for some of what she saw than the explanations she has offered."

Really? What are they? Because the ones that I'm aware of have largely debunked by other evidence, corroboration, etc. But I'd be happy to discuss it w/ Steve either privately or publicly as he prefers. But I can't be out everywhere debunking every bit of misconception AND actually covering and investigating the story here, at other sites, and in the media (radio, etc.)

I'm doing my best, but there just ain't enough of me to go around. So I DO appreciate your help. Hint: Avoid harrangueing *anybody*, however, as that makes folks *less* likely, rather than more likely, to cover anything. I can tell u this from first hand experience.

Brad, don't for a moment think that I am unappreciative of your efforts.

Another quote from Steve...

"The reason that few want to write about this or even comment on it is the moment they try to credibly investigate the story, they are attacked by her followers or Sibel herself if they raise inconvenient questions."

Another poster at his site, ArthurDecco, has asked what "inconvienient questions" Steve is refering to. I doubt he'll get an answer.

Who has tried "to credibily investigate the story" and then been attacked?

(I realize you can't answer to what Steve was saying.) But I couldn't find the quote you previously mentioned over on his site. Feel free to share the URL and I'll do my best to try to jump in to the conversation if possible.

I don't know, it just seems like such a no-brainer to this expatriate - The country MUST be taken back, or curl up tight and kiss its butt a fond goodby. It's clear that there has been a coup e'etat and any fool can see that there can be but one successful gambit to overcome it, starting now. The commander-in-chief is obligated, under the constitutin and his oath of office, to have the miscreants apprehended and sent to a venue (The Hague, if the US refused to prosecute) where they can be properly tried.

I wish people could have a chance to talk about nice stuff, that the terrible happenings could hold off for a blessed while - what a bummer, that this once lovely world has become such a bummer. Please forgive my waxing so noumenalistic. Happy trails from lovely Prague!

Big Dan (and others who've rung in). The idea of "control" may end up being a semantical one, though I'll still aver that the context in which you seem to be using it implies a far great "consiracy" then I believe the yutzes I know in the media are likely able to pull off.

But whether that's a soft conspiracy/self-censorship/control or something more insidious (as you seem to suggest), I've alerted the Project Media folks to the conversation, as you had suggested, and we'll see if they have any thoughts to offer to the discussion.

I would be interested in PC's take on whether the corporate media is controlled or they're "scared/intimidated".

I think it's the former, because suppressed or slanted stories have gone on over the years, many years. People have changed over those many years, yet that common thread remains...of the suppressed/slanted stories. The pattern of the suppressed/slanted stories over many many years and through many changes of people always is slanted towards the wealthy, corporations, the military industrial complex, and government officials who back them. In general, it never favors the populace. That's a PLAN, not an ACCIDENT. That's just my opinion.

Project Censored goes back to the 70's. So, if we believe the "intimidated/frightened" theory, we have to believe an array of different people over many decades have all amazingly been intimidated/frightened independently. That to me is not believable.

What is believable to explain it, is a few people control it. That is very believable. When you OWN something, it's easy to control the output of what you OWN.

"With all due respect, you have an interesting and entertaining blog and it's great that several notables have provided you with testimonials, but don't you think calling yourself a "journalist" might be going a little too far?"

"As I said, POA, he has an entertaining blog. When some real journalists pick up the story then alot of people will pay attention including me. If none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of legitimate news outlets in the country are willing to cover the story, it makes me skeptical that there's any "there" there"

"That is unless you believe in crackpot conspiracy theories like the idea that media outlets across the land are conspiring to keep the story quiet"

"A blog is a blog. Brad owns his blog; he can say whatever he wants. I have no basis for either accepting or questioning the veracity of what he says"

"But only the delusional or the paranoid could believe that the story is being suppressed by some sort of media conspiracy. It's much more reasonable to conclude the story has largely been ignored by the conventional media because there are important holes in what Edmonds has to say"

"Could Brad Friedman be right? Sure. Could the facts he's presenting be skewed or half-truths? Sure. There's nothing about the reputation of Brad Friedman or the Brad Blog that makes anything he says particularly compelling"

"I'm willing to consider the possibility that there may be enough information in the public domain to suggest some type of objective inquiry is called for. But the mere fact that a blogger is calling for an independent investigation is, of itself, not particularly compelling"

"No mainstream media outlet is above reproach; they all make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes are bad. But that's hardly a reason to believe everything you read on a blog or any other internet site"

"Glenn Beck has a blog too. So does Sean Hannity. Should we run out and call for investigations every time they make some allegation on their blogs?"

"If Brad Friedman is on to something, he will manage to get some legitimate and trustworthy journalistic enterprise to examine it"

"Until then, it's just noise"

"And by the way, in case you didn't read the first sentence of Brad Friedman's comment, he said that taunting does nothing to establish the credibility of the story. I think it's fair to say that carrying on like a maniac doesn't help too much either"

"POA --- taunting journalists is not going to gain the Sibel Edmonds story any traction." Of course, I concur. I know that when folks taunt me to cover this or that, I have a lot less interest in doing so. (Brad Friedman)

How long can "officials" with authority to make policy and things happen are going to have their own authority respected, when it's been like 10 years and the authority ignores such problems using whatever list of excuses. You want to tell us (the public) to obey all these laws of the land, yet at the same time you (government/state/officials) break them?

Frankly we (the public) are at odds with such government officials in wherever agency they hail from. You "officially" demanding this and that, but when it comes to carrying the can yourself, you don't.

I think government has fucked up. They don't seem to grok the public has this dollar/bank/bond problem which if left as it is, working for anything will end up being worthless. Retirement (if based on the dollar) worthless. Since the money (the dollar) will be worthless. Which is the SENATE'S OATH BREAKING.

This is why there's no trust. Not in Government, Not in Cops, Not in Flu Shots, Not in the Financial Market. And won't be ever. And the path forward on this road will be littered with nasty surprises which destroy real lives.

Like ALCO's profits. They didn't actually produce more in yesterday's news. The price of the aluminum changed instead. Fascist media sources call that green shoots, I call it cooking the god damned books, and eventually will get dealt with.

In fact all these laws and crap that have been pretty much skirting the Constitution are going to come back to bite this country in the ass. Not only is the Constitution reduced to symbology without substance, the actual power the people have has been reduced to nothing (officially).

And I don't want to scare you (unofficially), but if it stays that way, the people's power will not be what the officials consider legal under whatever crap legal shit they've currently passed to cover their dreamed up nonsense turd pile with.

At a certain point, our own government itself becomes a terrorist threat. If not worse than a terrorist threat.

What if that threat threatens your family members?
Do you pick up a weapon and stop them?

Where the fuck in the original constitution did it say...

can't protest? can't have a non-corporate tv station for the public? can't be a "journalist" without profiting from it? (Anyone want to have themselves take a gift of a penny from me and then pay me a penny for all my corporate journalism work?) I am not a journalist, I said that many times before on bradblog. If I was though, I wouldn't like this at all, and even I not being a journalist still I don't like this at all.

Ultimately I don't want to see the end result of all this, where we have law enforcement, police (corporate or private)and US military in the streets breaking every damned thing they swore an oath too! When I say I don't want to see the end result, that doesn't mean I want to die. It means I hate seeing all this go down because our "electronic vote tabulation device" based machines allowed these corrupt bastards and bitches assume and exploit their authority. The way I see it all these problems and more are because of these devices.

And the exploited powers?
Unacceptable behavior where ever it lurks.

How is it when I swore an oath, it's somehow different then when current officials do? Their oath conflicts with my oath.

I am not alone.

It's deep and nasty what they have done to us. Up is Down, Yes is No, Clean is Dirty, Pure white light is Darkness nothing ether. So it's no
surprise there would be confusion and lack of trust.

How about a law that stops these kind of "final steps" from happening before it's too late?

Cause if the public get tangled with law enforcement, us military, there's no going back from that.

Last night, I emailed him a link to the comment you posted on his blog. I know that he does not always read the entire threads, or, at least, he claims not to. So I thought I would call his attention to your comment.

Anyway, this morning I recieved a short email, following...

"Do you happen to have a phone number for the gentleman working with Sibel. I’ll give him a call. Best, steve"

Wierd, huh?? Its as if he doesn't know it was you that posted the comment.... "the gentleman working with Sibel"

Anyway, give him a shout, if you're so inclined. I believe his phone number is listed at his blog, if not, let me know, and I'll see what I can do to get it for you. If not his blog, I'm sure you can find a number for the New America Foundation. Or, if you want, just email me your number, and I will forward it to him, with a promise that that is ALL I will do with the number.

POA - I dropped him an email with my phone number. Hopefully I sent to the correct email address, as he hasn't answered me there when I sent it previously. If you have an email address that is public for him, that u used to contact him, feel free to share (or send it to me at Brad@BradBlog.com if it's not public).

POA - Just a quick update for ya. Steve and I are now directly in touch on this matter. We'll see what comes of it. But thank you for sticking with him on it (and with me, pointing me over to his comments, etc.)

"You certainly have been tenacious about pursuing Edmund’s accusations; that’s commendable, but it’s not enough. Ultimately for the story to have legs you have to convince other mainstream reporters that there's "there" there."

I don't even give a crap how any opinions on "how to get a story into the corporate media and public broadcast spectrum."

I want my government back!
I want officials who have taken the oath, to get off their asses, and on this damn thing, and find out if these people are treasonous or not!

Now. You want to make a story on it? Or profit, I don't give a crap.

But I want officials LEGALLY doing what they swore to do, and I want it happening ASAP. Already this decade long surveillance crap is a miserable failure. If we got treasonous people inside government we need their god damn security yanked, their net/vault / official business / voting / whatever yanked and and to find out and either clear the target or jail the bastard for 999 years. Expedite these reports, and surveillance datas' and uphold your sworn oath.

Not letting Grossman access whatever government networks, documents, or making decisions. Until we can find out, it's unbelievable to me the guys Security clearance and position remains in place. Already I don't like that bastard anyway with all this Electronic Vote Tabulation Device crap is seems to love to shove on us. Then we hear he's been under surveillance for a decade? And then we have Sibel's report.

Is there nobody in our god damned government responsible enough to "Just Do it" and get cracking.

The whole corporate media thing is a different pandora's box in the big picture.

But I can tell you right now if I was still in the USAF, and another soldier did some illegal shit against my country, I guarantee that bastard would be stopped, using all my resources within minutes! If I physically had to hit the bastard over the head with my toolbox I would. (Yeah my weapon was a toolbox)

NOW WHERE'S THE COPS ALREADY!?

They got all this freaking time and resources to spy on American citizens under the "drug war" + "patriot act" nonsense, but when someone tells them someone high up could be into sabotage, treason, leaking classified data, all they fucking do for 12 years is nothing?!

This isn't really a corporate media problem as much as it is an oath of office, and sworn oath breaking Constitutional crisis. The corporate media agenda is just a giant turd factory, and to deal with that will require knocking on the FCC's door, but I want ACTION on my fellow American citizen's (and EX FBI translator's) report.

Good God already!

WTF!?

no wonder banksters can steal all this money, the people in charge of stopping are "patients in an insane asylum."

And if we could get these electronic vote tabulation devices outlawed nationally, then maybe the people can finally get these rotten officials out of office before they destroy more than just the US Constitution (e.g. our government itself)

While, I agree the corporate media no longer serves the public interest, and perhaps it's time to legally and forcefully get them the hell off public broadcast spectrum until they do serve the public interest. (WHY ARE THEIR PUBLIC FILES NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE? YOU GOING TO TELL ME IT COST TOO MUCH OR TECHNOLOGY ISN'T THERE? LIAR!!!)

I'm sorry but if you read a story like the Sibel Edmonds case and all you can drum up is whaaa whaa the corporate media won't play my miniDV then we truly are fucked in America.

The electronic vote tabulation device is an invention which removes the public or republic's power of accountability to hold officials accountable; by breaking the chain of custody of a registered voter's "vote representation in any kind of electronic signal format" from being seen by anyone attempting to provide public oversight, simply because they can not SEE electronic signals physically with their eyes. Add into the mix untrained (in electronics and physics and programming) local law enforcement is used to ensure anyone smart enough to point out the flaws (like poll-watchers) is delayed by any means (beat the rap, not the ride) until everything becomes moot as officials ritually swear (fastrack by jet , overnighter) in and assume their power again and wash, rinse, repeat.

And now people (citizens) are realizing their (these fastrack piece of crap officials) laws suck, they suck, and some (officials) are corrupted completely.

So why wouldn't we want to pick up the phone, and at least have Grossman checked out once and for all? It doesn't mean he's guilty, it just means halt. Hold up for a moment, your still getting paid, you can answer some questions while we make sure we can trust you with nuke secrets.

poa...dont get discouraged..from the outside looking in,it looks like u are making progress

phil said,
So why wouldn't we want to pick up the phone, and at least have Grossman checked out once and for all? It doesn't mean he's guilty, it just means halt. Hold up for a moment, your still getting paid, you can answer some questions while we make sure we can trust you with nuke secrets.

Come on.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

it is simply mind boggling that anyone would suggest that we NOT investigate these accusations

Seconding K from I, POA. You're scrappy push-back has far more perma-heft than you might know from mid-battle. You (and Brad) read like timeless reason, while they reek of whiny ego-nibbling insecurity. And there it is, splashed up there on the bright cyber-billboard of TWN's comment section forever and ever, for all the world to remember who said what and when and who was right and who was a condescending non-non. And we will know one day (perhaps soon).

Any rational reader can see the inequity of argument, the mindless nitty-nashing of their jello-shot logic to your mensca. Phil's rant above could not be more perftect. Cheeky and questions and the like should bleach out, take a dive while there is a shred of ambiguity in this story to rest their sorry laurels on - for the internet's memory is long, even though our attention spans are short.

Keep up the great work. You know you've got 'em on the run or in a noggin' hold when they have no choice but to surround and attack you en masse like effin' fire ants.